Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17473 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Yadav & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Etah & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Mahesh N. Singh,M.N. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Siddharth for respondent no.4.
Facts are that suit was filed by the plaintiffpetitioners seeking
permanent injunction to restrain the defendantrespondent no. 4 from
enforcing the recovery certificate issued against him. A mandatory
injunction was also claimed directing the respondents before
proceeding to make recovery under Section 11A of U.P. Agricultural
Credit Act, proceeding under Section 11 may be undertaken. An
application for temporary injunction was also moved which remained
pending for more than a year. Inaction on the part of the trial court,
the petitioners preferred a writ petition no. 9275 of 2010 before this
Court which was disposed of vide order dated 8.3.2010 with the
following observations :
” In view of the aforesaid submissions it would be appropriate that
the petitioners should furnish security other than cash or bank
guarantee and other than security pledged in the loan before the trial
court within two weeks from today and in case the same is furnished
to the satisfaction of the trial court the injunction application would be
decided in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands finally disposed of.
No order as to costs.”
The grievance of the petitioner is that in compliance of the order of
this Court the petitioners furnished security vide application dated
16.3.2010. Trial court vide order dated 18.3.2010 rejected the
security and directed the petitioners to furnish the security in cash
and fixed 7.4.2010 for disposal of the temporary injunction
application. There cannot be doubt that not only the order passed by
the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah is directly in the teeth of the
order dated 8.3.2010 passed by this Court but also contemptuous.
This Court while deciding the writ petition no. 9275 of 2010 has
clearly directed the petitioners to furnish security other than cash or
bank guarantee and other than security pledged in the loan.
This Court failed to understand as to what basis the Civil Judge has
directed the petitioners to furnish the security in cash.
Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also fairly
conceded that the order is wrong and in violation of the order passed
by this Court.
In view of above, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned
order dated 18.3.2010 is quashed.
Trial court is directed to reconsider the sufficiency of the security
already furnished by the petitioners and pass fresh orders and
thereafter, proceed to decide the temporary injunction matter as
expeditiously as possible. The civil Judge, Etah who has passed the
order is also directed to be more cautious in future and not to pass
casual order in violation of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
nd